"Breeding-back" aims to restore or immitate extinct animals by selective breeding. This blog provides general information, the facts behind myths and news from various projects.

Wednesday, 1 July 2015

The European water buffalo / water buffalo in Europe

During the Pleistocene and probably also until the antiquary, Europe was
not inhabited by only two species of bovine – aurochs and wisent – but three.
This third bovine was Bubalusmurrensis, an indigenous species of water
buffalo. It is extinct and left no living descendants. Nowadays, due to the
European rewilding movement, the genus Bubalus
has gained some interest for landscape conservationists and “rewilders”. It is
important to distinguish between living European variants of the domestic water
buffalo, descending from the Asiatic Bubalus
arnee, and the indigenous species B.
murrensis.

Are water
buffalos a perspective for conservation in Europe, and are they further a
legitimate megafauna species on this continent?

Bubalus murrensis – the true European water buffalo

B. murrensis was part of a clade within Bubalus that is now extinct and that was different
from B. arnee. Since the postcranial
skeleton of large bovines are all very similar, most material assigned to that
species are skulls.

It was part
of the interglacial fauna, like the aurochs and unlike steppe bison and
mammoth. It seemingly disappeared at the end of the Pleistocene or early
Holocene. There is sparse Neolithic postcranial material from the East of
Austria that have been tentatively assigned to Bubalus by Pucher 1991 [1]. About three years ago, I had email conversation
with Erich Pucher about his findings, and he told me that the assignment to Bubalus was on weak ground and he would
reclassify them as Bos nowadays. I do
not know of more Holocene material that might or might not be remains of B. murrensis, although there is the
chance that a number of postcranial elements were erroneously assigned to Bos or Bison.

I composed
a picture showing a number of buffalo specimen that are extinct species of Bubalus. The only one I know for sure to
be murrensis from Germany is the one
at the top left, provided by Markus Bühler. The other ones are buffalo
skeletons that I found on Russian websites, perhaps they are Asiatic relatives
that might provide some clue how their European pendant looked like. The
European water buffalo had horns that resembled those of the smaller tamaraw (B. mindorensis) more than the Asiatic
water buffalo in that they were oriented more backwards and were not as strongly
curved, and their horns probably lacked an upwards curve. Other than that, the
rest of the animal might have been quite alike its relatives as bovines do not
vary that much in that respect… At the right at the top there is a beautiful life
restoration of B. murrensis.

It lived
near freshwater habitats just like other members of this genus, many of the
remains assigned to this species are from the Netherlands and Germany. A lot of
evidence for its presence was found in the Rhone valley, which also was home to
the hippopotamus during the Eem interglacial. Bioindicator species suggest that
this region was a mosaic of open grassland and forested areas [2]. Due to the
sparse palaeontological information we do not know much about its ecology and
behaviour. I think it is sound to assume that it was ecologically very similar
to its two living relatives, feeding on grasses and water- and swamp plants on
watersides of their wetland habitats. We have no clue how gregarious they were.
Tamaraw are mostly solitary, while Asiatic water buffalos roam in groups of up
to 30 individuals, similar to aurochs/cattle. Probably they were more similar
to the latter. I wonder how common they were. There seem to be only very few
artistic references to this species in prehistoric art – I only know of
petroglyphs from the French cave of Bourdeilles dating back 18.000 years ago
that are often believed to show aurochs but I think they more likely depict
buffalo because of the horn and head shape. The rarity of artistic references
might implicate that B. murrensis was
not an important animal in the world of the paleolithic people, perhaps it was
a comparably rare animal. But this is speculation. Since it seemingly was not
illustrated on coloured cave paintings, we have no idea of its coat colour. Since
tamaraw, some domestic and wild Asiatic buffalo have the same “markings” in the
form of white areas on their upper lips (something like a very reduced version
of the “mealy mouth” in cattle), sometimes also a white tail tip and a
crescent-like streak on the ventral side of their neck (I don’t know if there
is a particular name for it, call it “neckband”), these markings might have
been present in the European water buffalo as well. The rest of the coat colour
might have been solid, like in all the other buffalos. Of course we have no
idea of the shade of its colour – it might have ranged from greyish over light
brown to dark brown or black. Or perhaps it even was a totally different
colour… My amateurish illustration on deviantArt shows one possibility.

Domestic buffalo in Europe

Bubalus arnee, the wild Asiatic buffalo, was domesticated
about 5000 years ago (the exact time of domestication is a matter of
discussion), probably in two separate events by the Indus culture and China [3].
From the Middle East, the domestic buffalo was introduced to Europe as
livestock. On this continent it developed landraces that have adapted to the
climate here, including a dense and effective winter coat. They can cope with
temperatures below -20°C and are also resistant to European parasites. In fact
they are better at living on very poor forage than cattle are. While there is a
number of specific named breeds in Asia, most buffalo in Europe are of mixed,
undetermined origin and there are no clearly marked breeds. I am not that keen researching
all those subtypes/breeds of domestic buffalo as it is not really relevant for
this post.

It is
estimated that there are about 150 million domestic buffalo on this world
according to Wikipedia, most of them in Asia. These include a number of feral
populations in South East Asia, and also Australia. The longest history as
European livestock they have in Eastern Europe, especially the Balkan and also
the Carpathians. But they also becomeincreasingly popular in Germany where they number 2.100 animals already
(2010) [4], and also the Netherlands. They can spend all year round outside
without a barn or shed and supplementary feeding so some conservation projects
use them as grazers just like cattle or horses. Why do they use this non-native
species?

Water buffalo at the NP Neusiedler See-Seewinkel, Austria.

Water buffalo as European megafauna?

Obviously
domestic water buffalo can be used in conservation projects, but in order to
see whether they should be used, or even be introduced into wilderness areas,
or not we should investigate the following questions:

1. What
purpose do water buffalo serve in conservation projects?

2. Could
this job be done by native species as well?

3. Are
domestic water buffalo an adequate proxy for B. murrensis, could they even be regarded as native themselves?

Water
buffalo have the same positive effect on flora and fauna diversity that other
grazers have. By feeding and trampling, they create a more diverse landscape by
hindering single, few species from becoming over-dominant and reducing the
amount of plant and animal species present. Their organic waste is habitat and
food source for many insect and decomposer species, which, on the other hand, are
important for avi- and herpetofauna. But they have one advantage over cattle,
horses, sheep and goats: the water buffalo has the highest affinity to wetland,
both in physical and dietary respect [4, 5]. by wallowing they create small
bodies of water that are important for amphibians, as they experience habitat
loss even in nature reserves because of silting and drying. Especially the
endangered yellow-bellied toad (which is in fact not a toad) benefits from
this, but also a lot of other species as well. Cattle and particularly wild
boar (as everybody knows, they wallow as well) do that too, but not to the same
extent. And cattle make only limited use of wetland, as do goats and sheep. Cattle
cannot digest a number of water plants in the first place [4.]. Elk have been
used in wetland conservation with success, but they are browsers and do not
prevent the unwanted succession of grasses [4].

That is the
reason why conservationists have to artificially create these small, non-persistent
waterbodies, by using trucks or even tanks (f.e. see here in the Lippeaue) [5].
No question that this is not a satisfying solution on long-term sight for
reserves should be as natural as possible. Water buffalo consume wetland or
water plants that none of the other species do, and are most efficient in
creating small waterbodies by wallowing and trampling. So perhaps water buffalo
are not only good but almost necessary for many European nature reserves and
biotopes containing wetlands [4, 5].

But if that
was the case, how did all this diversity survive all the millennia of the absence
of Bubalus? What did amphibians and
waterbirds do before we had the idea of using water buffalos or tanks in
natural reserves? I think that the work of cattle/aurochs (and also other large
grazers), wild boar and elk, not to forget the dynamics of natural waterbodies,
were sufficient to keep up the diversity up over the Holocene. In fact, it was
and is the industrialization and water management that is destroying the
habitat of amphibians and other wetland dwelling species and not the loss of a
keystone species several millennia ago. So in my view, the use of water
buffalos is certainly beneficial, but not indispensably necessary.

Another
argument raised by those who advocate an introduction of water buffalos into
European nature reserves is that domestic water buffalos have a legitimation as
native animals here because their genus, Bubalus,
was present here until the Pleistocene extinction wave and that they would be
present without human influence anyway because either B. murrensis was hunted to extinction or B. arnee would have migrated to Europe if humans would not have
hindered them [6]. In my opinion, it is speculation that B. murrensis was hunted to extinction. While I am convinced that
the overkill hypothesis is certainly more plausible than any other in cases
such as the woolly mammoth, and that way more Pleistocene megafauna species
would still be alive today without human influence, I think it is too much of a
stretch to blame humans categorically for the extinction of each single species
that died out around that time – a time that undoubtedly also experienced
massive climatic and ecologic changes. And the poor presence of Bubalus in Pleistocene art makes me
think that it probably was not a very important game species to humans. Of
course it is possible that Bubalus
survived longer into the Holocene but and that we did not notice that in
archaeological evidence because most of the Holocene Bubalus material has been assigned to Bison and Bos. But where are
the crania, or at least horn fragments? One argument is that water buffalos
died out earlier than the other two bovine species because human settlements
focused on large fertile deltas, the prime habitat of Bubalus. However I have no doubt that there would have still been
enough space for this species to continue living into historical times and I
also do not think that civilization was intense enough to prevent Bubalusarnee to migrate into the west and, in consequence, Europe.

Nevertheless,
lets assume that Bubalus murrensis
would have still been around in Europe without human influence and it therefore
has a legitimate place in modern European nature reserves. Would domestic
buffalo be an adequate proxy? I do think so. They are not the same species (the
claim that B. murrensis was merely a
chronospecies is, as far as I know, baseless), but ecologically and
morphologically probably very similar. Despite being domestic, they are as
suited as most cattle to live here in a feral state.

In the end
I would say that calling Bubalus a native
clade in modern Europe is far-fetched,and regarding domestic buffalo based on very weak ground as B. arnee
probably never inhabited this continent. Actually it sounds like a classic nonsequitur:
“I am in Innsbruck. Innsbruck is located in Austria, just like Vienna. Therefore
I am in Vienna”. Nonetheless, water buffalo can live here, perhaps would
without human influence or perhaps not, and they would probably do no harm if
introduced here (I do not think they would be considerable competitors for
other grazers) but would actually be beneficial even though probably not
necessary. Imagining a wilderness area with three bovine species instead of two
that all look rather different from each other is tempting and inspiring, and
it would be interesting to see how these three species would interact,
ecologically and physically. Therefore I would certainly have no objections
against a project releasing water buffalos into a European reserve, although I
think Europe can do well without them and truly native species should have
priority in any case.

The public
acceptance of feral water buffalo would probably be higher than the academic.

The water buffalo project of the TNF

The True
Nature Foundation is currently preparing a project that aims to introduce water
buffalo into a number of suited areas [7]. The
plan is to build up herds of European domestic buffalo that are adapted to live
here in a feral state and to inseminate them with semen of wild Asiatic buffalo
in order to create a buffalo population with wild-type features but also adaption
to European climate parasites and forage at the same time. Sounds like an ideal
plan to me and I actually had the same idea as well. They also claim that they
want to reconstruct the physical characteristics of the Bubalus murrensis, but I wonder how that should work. We have no
idea of its colouration, whether it had those white markings or was solid
coloured, and if in which tone (grey like Asiatic buffalo or dark brown to
black like European domestic buffalo?). It is likely that it had the “standard
body” of water buffalo with the same size as B. arnee, which is of course feasible to achieve but not a
characteristic trait of B. murrensis.
The only diagnostic optical trait of this species we know of is its horn shape,
which is, as I described above, more like that of the tamaraw than of any
domestic or wild Asiatic water buffalo. Therefore I suggested also using semen
of tamaraw. I think it is likely that both species hybridize without restricted
fertility and it would bring in the genes for a murrensis-like horn shape. Also it would add more genetic diversity
and other wild-type genes. The colour of that population would be a bit of a
mosaic, but by far not as heterogeneous as in a random bunch of domestic cattle.

What’s the
good of trying to create optic similarity? Well, its not a functional one.
Actually it is merely an emotional one, it is more satisfying when the animal
that is supposed to fill the old niche of B.
murrensis also resembles this species appearance, even if this resemblance
is only superficial and artificial.

The crossbreeding that will be executed by the TNF's project. Looking forward to seeing the results.

But why
using a population of hybrids instead of pure herds of wild Asiatic water
buffalo? First of all, it is not sure at all that they would do well in Europe.
They are from a different climatic zone with different parasites and diseases.
Furthermore, and that brings as to the next point, wild Asiatic buffalos are
very rare and endangered, and there are only few populations left in the wild.
So I doubt that owners would give their animals to such a project introducing
them into a climate and region where they are not native – and I completely
agree on that. In my opinion, and probably that of most other people as well,
the few true wild water buffalo should be used for conservation programs in
their home range. So taking a herd of domestic buffalo and inseminating them
with wild buffalo sperm is the most ideal option to me, also because the
domestic buffalos are adapted to Europe already. I don’t think such a
population would be unsatisfying. For once, most people would not know that a
domestic water buffalo is domestic, since it does not nearly look as domestic
as ordinary cattle do. Furthermore, they would inherit wild traits anyway and
the herd would not be very heterogeneous.

Behaviour

We know
nothing about the behaviour of B.
murrensis, especially towards humans. Actually I am not fond of the issue
that is always made of this aspect of the behaviour of bovines in nature, but
it has to be addressed because people are concerned about that when these
animals are to be released. The behaviour of wild Asiatic buffalo is described
as aggressive when teased but preferring flight. So “standard” for wild
bovines. Domestic buffalo are said to be very gentle and friendly in normal
domestic use. But very likely their behaviour is plastic and depends on
socialization just like that of cattle I guess, so their mood might change when
living under semi-feral conditions. I visited the National Park
Neusiedler See-Seewinkel in Burgenland, Austria, in 2013 where Hungarian Grey cattle
graze together with water buffalo. The buffalo were very curious and cuddly.
One of them showed threating behaviour but probably because they had calves. I
never heard or read that water buffalo are problematic because of aggressive
behaviour, so they probably are not any more dangerous or not-dangerous than
cattle under semi-feral conditions.

Water
buffalo and cattle live together in some semi-natural reserves like in Neusiedl
or Spreeaue (Germany), and there is, as far as I know, no agonistic behaviour
between both species. Bos and Bubalus do not hybridize, a mating
either results in no embryo or a miscarry at early stage [8], so there is no
danger of intermixing. Probably not with wisent either, because Bison is way closer related to Bos than Bubalus.

Legal issues

Domestic
buffalo are legally treated in almost the same way as domestic cattle. I don’t
know what the situation with wild Asiatic buffalo is, since these are wild and
exotic animals. It is probably also an interesting question how a hybrid
population of wild and domestic buffalo will be treated… Let’s see what the TNF
is going to do about that.

9 comments:

Awesome article! Very informational! I hope that TNF provides us with more photo's and info on their website or something. Currently they have just one photo about their waterbuffalon project, which is a bit sparse....Also, it is't clear, to me at least, where they are going to release these animals once they have bred a considerable number. It would be cool to see other oganisations taking an interest in waterbuffalo too. Thanks for writing the article. ;-) I hope to see more on this topic in the future

Thank you Daniel for this post.The fact that the scientific evidence is week regarding one species does not mean that it did not existed in Europe, most bone discoveries of the bovid family are associated with bos or bison imediatly disregarding the possibility of being Bubalus. To resolve this, only genetic investigation (if possible) would resolve this issue and possibly the result would be quite surprising and would also help to clearly define if murrensis was a species of its own, a regional version of arnae or maybe even closer to mindorensis. After this a clear definition and reintroduction plan could be set considering the results of this investigation.What is clear for me now is that in Europe giving the present climatic conditions there are absolutely no problems in the presence of this species widespread through temperate and mediterranean regions as the domestic version prooves. One thing more I would like to know, if the organizations that want to introduce this species made these sort of investigation and in what are they basing their statements. Anyway I am very curious to see the results in the future and to see these water bufallos once again roaming wild in this continent.My best regardsJoão Ferro

I addressed the point of a possible les affaire assignation to Bos or Bison of what may be Bubalus remains in my article. But what is lacking in any case are crania. The skull is the most solid and largest "bone" (in fact its composed of dozens of bones) of a bovine and therefore likely to be preserved, that's why we have hundreds of aurochs skulls. And a Bubalus skull or horn cores would never be misidentified as Bos or Bison. Moreover, Bubalus are wetland dwellers which are the best habitat for fossilization, so this species probably should have a solid fossil record too if it really still existed late into the Holocene, even if it was not very common. But of course a genetic test for "suspicious" material would be desirable.

Hi, I think directly at the very bottom, but I am not sure. I haven't subscribed other blogs on blogger yet. However, I have 2 followers so I think it must be possible somewhere... Perhaps also via RSS, but I have no idea, perhaps google provides help.

It is worth pointing out that domestic buffalo belong to two very different types and probably had two different ancestor species. The evolutionary history of Bubalus seems to be poorly understood, as illustrated by the fact that wild and feral buffalo apparently co-exist in Sri Lanka without much interbreeding.

Great article, Daniel. Slightly off-topic, but do you have a view on likely habitat use by aurochs? Some commentators insist it was a 'forest' species, others insist that it was a 'floodplain / wetland' species, whereas I suspect it was more of an open habitat species, which likely wandered down to floodplains and rivers and used woodland cover too. I suspect that it would have been keen on open dry grassy areas with lots of, well, grass. I think closed-canopy forest would have been too shady to support aurochs and that floodplains would have been packed with water buffalos.

I wrote a piece on my blog recently suggesting the introduction of back-bred aurochs and an appropriate wild-type horse stand-in at Stonehenge in the UK:https://naturalareasblog.wordpress.com/2017/01/15/a-serengeti-at-stonehenge/What I didn't suggest here was a surrogate for European water buffalo, yet the area has rivers dissecting with reasonable floodplains.

The original European landscape is still a hot and ideological debate. The one side claims it was a closed canopy forest, the other side propagates a european Savanna. I think that both extremes are not well supported and that the truth probably lay somewhere inbetween, as so often. As for the aurochs in particular, I think that it was very much comparable to domestic cattle. Isotopes suggest that historical aurochs lived in a more swampy habitat, but that might be the result of habitat loss due to humans (the best areas being occupied by humans and their cattle). The aurochs was a hypsodont grazer, so it probably needed open fields, but modern cattle also use woods for shelter. But they spend most of the time in open areas, and so probably did the aurochs IMO. What we can also say is that the aurochs probably tended to be more of a lowland/wetland species than the wisent, which is more adapted to dry mountainous habitat than cattle. That's probably the way those two wild bovines divided their ecological niches in Europe.

About this blog

This blog is on everything related to the so-called “breeding-back” of extinct animals: From the extinct animals themselves, over their often domestic descendants and dedomestication to news and facts about various breeding-back projects, reports and photos from my own breeding-back related trips. I try to have a balanced and fact-based approach to this subject and to dismantle many of the popular myths. Enjoy!

Labels

About me

My major interest always have been extinct animals, from dinosaurs to Pleistocene megafauna and more recent extinctions. Besides that I am interested in evolution, genetics and ecology.
I am also an amateur animal artist, making drawings and models mostly of extinct animals.